Search results

Thank you.

David, your words were good too. Sometimes, just a simple note of compassion and shared experience from brethren can bring salve to a wounded heart. Thank you for both.

I appreciate the comments. . . 46AND2, thanks for the civility in the majority of your past posts to me, it's refreshing, but I'm going to excuse myself now. I'm tired and have more important matters to give my time and energy to, so I'll be taking my leave of this forum. I've decided that I...

I'm not sure how I got sucked into this one, but if there is a question or comment about their stand, it is much better to take it up with them. I commented to a comment about it and it has digressed to this. . . I am not sure if this is the intent of the OP, but it is a fantastic thread that...

Derek Meyer, thank your for clearing that up. . . Let's start with origins if you want to exclude supernatural means from purely natural processes, then we could go to chemicals to life, then we could progress to vast amounts of information and the accompanying language within DNA. . . there...

Fossilization is not a rare occurrence. There are millions of fossils (which lends itself to rapid burial, as in a global flood). But, the relative rarity of so-called transitional fossils does not seem to match what would be expected if there has been millions of years of transition. It is...

Maybe you should take it up with AiG. . .

Bye VirOptimus!

...

I'm going to have to assume that you know what you are talking about based on your response and refrain from commenting, since I am not a geologist nor have I been trained as one. Perhaps a creationist geologist will come along some time and will be able to give a response.

For one thing, I think it is pretty cool that you read the article and posted an excerpt from it here. . . Nevertheless, the Creationist view is based on the Bible, and the biblical record of Genesis 1-2 is foundational for creationist science. Not too long ago there was a thread discussing the...

I understand very well what I am trying to discuss, here in this thread and elsewhere, but I would like to return to the OP. You and I are digressing from it. "Science is a method that helps us understand physical reality. First facts are collected, then a hypothesis is formed that try to...

That depends on what you mean by science. Yes, I would say "science" as observable and testable phenomena are facts, yes. But, evolutionism is a worldview used to interpret those facts, the same as creationism.

You have a very good point there about science dealing only with the physical... So, we observe the physical world around us and the worldviews are where we get our meanings from. In other words, geologists observe strata, paleontologists observe fossils, biologists observe variations within...

That comment and those thoughts are most welcome.

Because someone does not have an advanced degree in science, does that mean that they cannot research? This is quite similar to saying that only the clergy are qualified to read and interpret Bible passages. The scientific data is prolific these days, and the Bible was written for all men. God...

It seems that they are operating from a worldview, a particular perspective. Evolutionary scientists don't function on the premise that there are only natural means?

If you are plainly reading, those should not be a problem for you: day means day Gen 1 Creation overview Gen 2 Garden view How do we know that there are conflicting chronologies?

Who are these apologists you keep referring to?

Did you even check the blog before you dismissed it. It had plenty of references if you had cared to check. No, I'd say my attitude has been relatively pleasant compared to the nastiness I encounter.